On July 30, 2020 a Motion-Secondary was filed involving a dispute between Armstea, Jermaine, Berquist, Jill, Bhagat, Nasreen, Bicana, Margarita, Black, Lucretsia, Blodgett, Andrea, Bumbera, Jacklyn, Carias, Anna, Carrington, N'Daisha, Cayetano, Kara, C., Gillian, Charity, Brenda, Chavez, Grace, Chery, Francesse, Christensen, Michelle, Clark, Ethan, Crabb, Cinnamon, Darin, Caroline, Demus, Chiann, Diaz, Kia, Ditrani, Marianne, Dobson, Amy, Doe 104, Jane, Doe 10, Jane, Doe 114, Jane, Doe 11, Jane, Doe 125, Jane, Doe 128, Jane, Doe 129, Jane, Doe 12, Jane, Doe 133, Jane, Doe 137, Jane, Doe 13, Jane, Doe 147, Jane, Doe 14 - Lsa, Jane, Doe 155, Jane, Doe 157, Jane, Doe 159, Jane, Doe 15, Jane, Doe 166, Jane, Doe 16 - Lsa, Jane, Doe 171, Jane, Doe 174, Jane, Doe 177, Jane, Doe 178, Jane, Doe 17 - Lsa, Jane, Doe 181, Jane, Doe 196, Jane, Doe 1, Jane, Doe 20, Jane, Doe 212, Jane, Doe 215, Jane, Doe 216, Jane, Doe 22, Jane, Doe 24, Jane, Doe 27, Jane, Doe 28, Jane, Doe 30, Jane, Doe 31, Jane, Doe 32, Jane, Doe 33, Jane, Doe 346, Jane, Doe 350, Jane, Doe 352, Jane, Doe 353, Jane, Doe 358, Jane, Doe 35, Jane, Doe 362, Jane, Doe 367, Jane, Doe 36, Jane, Doe 383, Jane, Doe 386, Jane, Doe 387, Jane, Doe 390, Jane, Doe 396, Jane, Doe 39, Jane, Doe 3, Jane, Doe 41, Jane, Doe 43, Jane, Doe 44, Jane, Doe 46, Jane, Doe 47, Jane, Doe 4, Jane, Doe 50, Jane, Doe 51, Jane, Doe 53, Jane, Doe 54, Jane, Doe 59, Jane, Doe 5, Jane, Doe 60, Jane, Doe 62, Jane, Doe 63, Jane, Doe 6, Jane, Doe 77, Jane, Doe 79, Jane, Doe 7, Jane, Doe 81, Jane, Doe 83, Jane, Doe 8, Jane, Doe 98, Jane, Doe 9, Jane, Doe Cl 10, Jane, Doe Cl 11, Jane, Doe Cl 12, Jane, Doe Cl 13, Jane, Doe Cl 14, Jane, Doe Cl 16, Jane, Doe Cl 1, Jane, Doe Cl 22, Jane, Doe Cl 3, Jane, Doe Cl 4, Jane, Doe Cl 5, Jane, Doe Cl 6, Jane, Doe Cl 7, Jane, Doe Cl 8, Jane, Doe Cl 9, Jane, Doe Eb 2, Jane, Doe Eb 30, Jane, Doe Eb 31, Jane, Doe Eb 32, Jane, Doe Eb 33, Jane, Doe Eb 34, Jane, Doe Eb 35, Jane, Doe Eb 38, Jane, Doe Eb 3, John, Doe Eb 40, Jane, Doe Eb 42, Jane, Doe Eb 43, Jane, Doe Eb 44, Jane, Doe Eb 45, Jane, Doe Eb 46, Jane, Doe Eb 47, Jane, Doe Eb 49, Jane, Doe Eb 4, John, Doe Eb 50, Jane, Doe Eb 51, Jane, Doe Eb 52, Jane, Doe Eb 53, Jane, Doe Eb 54, Jane, Doe Eb 55, Jane, Doe Eb 56, Jane, Doe Eb 57, Jane, Doe Eb 58, Jane, Doe Eb 59, Jane, Doe Eb 60, Jane, Doe Eb 61, Jane, Doe Eb 62, Jane, Doe Eb 63, Jane, Doe Eb 64, Jane, Doe Eb 65, Jane, Doe Eb 66, Jane, Doe Eb 67, Jane, Doe Eb 68, Jane, Doe Eb 70, Jane, Doe Eb 71, Jane, Doe Eb 72, Jane, Doe Eb 73, Jane, Doe Eb 74, Jane, Doe Eb 75, Jane, Doe Eb 76, Jane, Doe Eb 77, Jane, Doe Eb 78, Jane, Doe Eb 79, Jane, Doe Eb 80, Jane, Doe Eb 81, Jane, Doe Eb 82, Jane, Doe Eb 83, Jane, Doe Eb 84, Jane, Doe Eb 85, Jane, Doe Eb 86, Jane, Doe Eb 87, Jane, Doe Eb 88, Jane, Doe Eb 89, Jane, Doe Eb 90, Jane, Doe, Jane, Doe Lsa 102, Jane, Doe Lsa 103, Jane, Doe Lsa 119, Jane, Doe Lsa 122, Jane, Doe Lsa 129, Jane, Doe Lsa 131, Jane, Doe Lsa 135, Jane, Doe Lsa 139, Jane, Doe Lsa 140, Jane, Doe Lsa 144, Jane, Doe Lsa 156, Jane, Doe Lsa 168, Jane, Doe Lsa 181, Jane, Doe Lsa 182, Jane, Doe Lsa 184, Jane, Doe Lsa 18, Jane, Doe Lsa 190, Jane, Doe Lsa 199, Jane, Doe Lsa 19, Jane, Doe Lsa 20, Jane, Doe Lsa 210, Jane, Doe Lsa 213, John, Doe Lsa 214, Jane, Doe Lsa 225, Jane, Doe Lsa 233, Jane, Doe Lsa 25, Jane, Doe Lsa 342, Jane, Doe Lsa 349, Jane, Doe Lsa 34, Jane, Doe Lsa 363, Jane, Doe Lsa 366, Jane, Doe Lsa 37, Jane, Doe Lsa 397, Jane, Doe Lsa 45, Jane, Doe Lsa 49, Jane, Doe Lsa 58, Jane, Doe Lsa 64, Jane, Doe Lsa 69, Jane, Doe Lsa 70, Jane, Doe Lsa 78, Jane, Doe Lsa 82, Jane, Doe Lsa 88, Jane, Doe Wh 100, Jane, Doe Wh 104, Jane, Doe Wh 1062, Jane, Doe Wh 1063, Jane, Doe Wh 1068, Jane, Doe Wh 1070, Jane, Doe Wh 1074, Jane, Doe Wh1075, Jane, Doe Wh 1078, Jane, Doe Wh 107, Jane, Doe Wh1085, Jane, Doe Wh 108, Jane, Doe Wh 1090, Jane, Doe Wh 1096, Jane, Doe Wh 1098, Jane, Doe Wh 1100, Jane, Doe Wh 1109, Jane, Doe Wh 1113, Jane, Doe Wh 1114, Jane, Doe Wh 1150, Jane, Doe Wh 1153, Jane, Doe Wh 1159, Jane, Doe Wh 1161, Jane, Doe Wh 1163, Jane, Doe Wh 1167, Jane, Doe Wh 116, Jane, Doe Wh 1180, Jane, Doe Wh 1182, Jane, Doe Wh 1184, Jane, Doe Wh 1186, Jane, Doe Wh 118, Jane, Doe Wh 1195, Jane, Doe Wh 1198, Jane, Doe Wh 1202, Jane, Doe Wh 1204, Jane, Doe Wh 120, Jane, Doe Wh 1214, Jane, Doe Wh 1216, Jane, Doe Wh 1224, Jane, Doe Wh 1225, Jane, Doe Wh 1226, Jane, Doe Wh 122, Jane, Doe Wh 1232, Jane, Doe Wh 1236, Jane, Doe Wh 1245, Jane, Doe Wh 1249, Jane, Doe Wh 1252, Jane, Doe Wh 1257, Jane, Doe Wh 1259, Jane, Doe Wh 126, Jane, Doe Wh 133, Jane, Doe Wh 1357, Jane, Doe Wh 1358, Jane, Doe Wh 1361, Jane, Doe Wh 1362, Jane, Doe Wh 1363, Jane, Doe Wh 1364, Jane, Doe Wh 1369, Jane, Doe Wh 136, Jane, Doe Wh 1373, Jane, Doe Wh 1374, Jane, Doe Wh 1377, Jane, Doe Wh 138, Jane, Doe Wh 140, Jane, Doe Wh 144, Jane, Doe Wh 149, Jane, Doe Wh 14, Jane, Doe Wh 1501, Jane, Doe Wh 1503, Jane, Doe Wh 1508, Jane, Doe Wh 1570, Jane, Doe Wh 15, Jane, Doe Wh 1625, Jane, Doe Wh 162, Jane, Doe Wh 16, Jane, Doe Wh 1710, Jane, Doe Wh 1744, Jane, Doe Wh 174, Jane, Doe Wh 1824, Jane, Doe Wh 18, Jane, Doe Wh 20, Jane, Doe Wh 212, Jane, Doe Wh 213, Jane, Doe Wh 215, Jane, Doe Wh 217, Jane, Doe Wh 21, Jane, Doe Wh 230, Jane, Doe Wh 233, Jane, Doe Wh 235, Jane, Doe Wh 238, Jane, Doe Wh 239, Jane, Doe Wh 241, Jane, Doe Wh 250, Jane, Doe Wh 252, Jane, Doe Wh 256, Jane, Doe Wh 25, Jane, Doe Wh 260, Jane, Doe Wh 261, Jane, Doe Wh 265, Jane, Doe Wh 266, Jane, Doe Wh 268, Jane, Doe Wh 269, Jane, Doe Wh 270, Jane, Doe Wh 273, Jane, Doe Wh 279, Jane, Doe Wh 27, Jane, Doe Wh 280, Jane, Doe Wh 283, Jane, Doe Wh 284, Jane, Doe Wh 285, Jane, Doe Wh 290, Jane, Doe Wh 42, Jane, Doe Wh 43, Jane, Doe Wh 45, Jane, Doe Wh 46, Jane, Doe Wh 47, Jane, Doe Wh 48, Jane, Doe Wh 4, Jane, Doe Wh 50, Jane, Doe Wh 51, Jane, Doe Wh 52, Jane, Doe Wh 541, Jane, Doe Wh 542, Jane, Doe Wh 543, Jane, Doe Wh 544, Jane, Doe Wh 553, Jane, Doe Wh 557, Jane, Doe Wh 569, Jane, Doe Wh 580, Jane, Doe Wh 585, Jane, Doe Wh 586, Jane, Doe Wh 5, Jane, Doe Wh 6, Jane, Doe Wh6, Jane, Doe Wh 710, Jane, Doe Wh 711, Jane, Doe Wh 712, Jane, Doe Wh 715, Jane, Doe Wh 716, Jane, Doe Wh 721, Jane, Doe Wh 724, Jane, Doe Wh 725, Jane, Doe Wh 726, Jane, Doe Wh 728, Jane, Doe Wh 732, Jane, Doe Wh 739, Jane, Doe Wh 73, Jane, Doe Wh 742, Jane, Doe Wh 744, Jane, Doe Wh 74, Jane, Doe Wh 766, Jane, Doe Wh 778, Jane, Doe Wh 789, Jane, Doe Wh 791, Jane, Doe Wh 798, Jane, Doe Wh 799, Jane, Doe Wh 806, Jane, Doe Wh 814, Jane, Doe Wh 81, Jane, Doe Wh 82, Jane, Doe Wh 84, Jane, Doe Wh 85, Jane, Doe Wh 88, Jane, Doe Wh 893, Jane, Doe Wh 894, Jane, Doe Wh 896, Jane, Doe Wh 899, Jane, Doe Wh 89, Jane, Doe Wh 900, Jane, Doe Wh 905, Jane, Doe Wh 908, Jane, Doe Wh 912, Jane, Doe Wh 913, Jane, Doe Wh 914, Jane, Doe Wh 91, Jane, Doe Wh 921, Jane, Doe Wh 957, Jane, Doe Wh 961, Jane, Doe Wh 965, Jane, Doe Wh 968, Jane, Doe Wh 969, Jane, Doe Wh 971, Jane, Doe Wh 97, Jane, Doe Wh 99, Jane, Dunn, Christina, Espinosa, Mary, Ferreira, Ingrid, Fortune, Melissa, Gaston, Yuliya, Green, Racquel, Gregg, Rebecca, Gutierrez, Cheyenne, Halladay, Christina, Hall, Tykaja, Hardin, Jennifer, Hardman, Gyan, Hasem, Farheen, Hendrix, Tyra, Higgins, Michaela, Johnson, Mistle, Jones, Racquel, King, Tajiana, Kiperts, Margrieta L, Koch, Ashley, Kran, Justin, Lagle, Kim, Lim, Esther, Maher, Erin, Maimon, Karen, Mandala, Elizabeth, Marquart, Carrie, Marshall, Erin, Matheson, India, Mcgann, Kelsi, Miller, Caroline, Morrison, Jessica, Nan, Stephanie, Nunez, Rebecca, Osburn, Jessa, Plaintiffs, Policka, Kaleigh, Porter, Sherica, Priemer, Shala, Robinson, Brashiah, Robinson, Minnyone, Roe 10, Jane, Roe 11, Jane, Roe 12, Jane, Roe 13, Jane, Roe 14, Jane, Roe 1, Jane, Roe 3, Jane, Roe 4, Jane, Roe 5, Jane, Roe 6, Jane, Roe 7, Jane, Roe 8, Jane, Roe 9, Jane, Roe, Jane, Roe, John, Ruark, Kylee, Ruiz, Angela, Sanders, Cheryl, Scheer, Patricia, Shively, Carlishia, Sibblis, Shannon, Smith, Jessica, Stokes, Leslie, Swanson, Zeia, Swanson, Zela, Tarr, Hannah, Turkos, Alison, Wells, Hannah, Wheeler, Willow, Whisler, Mary, Whyte, Zarrin-Taj, Wilson, Amber, and Does 1 Through 50, Inclusive, G6 Hospitality Llc, Gp Hospitality Llc, A Delaware Limited Liability, Lyft, Inc., A Delaware Corporation, Mahdavi, Matin, Motel 6 Operating Lp, Motel 6 Operating L.P., A Delaware Limited, for COORDINATION in the District Court of San Francisco County.
For full print and download access, please subscribe at https://www.trellis.law/.
Please wait a moment while we load this page.
Preview
SAMI SEDGHANI, SBN 280437 1 DOWNTOWN L.A. LAW GROUP 2 One Sansome Street, Suite 3500-11 ELECTRONICALLY San Francisco, CA 94104 F I L E D 3 Tel.: (213) 385-6350 Superior Court of California, County of San Francisco Fax: (877) 389-2775 4 Email: Sami@downtownlalaw.com 06/08/2021 Clerk of the Court BY: JUDITH NUNEZ 5 Deputy Clerk Attorneys for Plaintiff 6 Jane Roe 7 SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA 8 COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO 9 10 11 Coordination Proceeding ) CASE NO.: CJC-20-005061 12 Special Title (Rule 3.550) ) ) JUDICIAL COUNCIL COORDINATION 13 IN RE LYFT RIDESHARE CASES ) PROCEEDING NO. 5061 ) 14 ) ) DECLARATION OF SAMI SEDGHANI 15 ) IN SUPPORT OF NON-PARTY JANE ) ROE’S OPPOSITION TO LYFT, INC.’S 16 ) PETITION TO COORDINATE ADD-ON ) CASE 17 ) ) 18 ) Judge: Hon. Andrew Y.S Cheng ) Dept. 613 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 1 PLAINTIFFS’ OBJECTION AND MOTION TO STRIKE LYFT’S REPLY BRIEF 1 2 3 I, Sami Sedghani, declare as follows: 4 1. I am an attorney at law licensed to practice in the State of California. I am counsel 5 of record for Plaintiff Jane Roe in CASE NO.: 21STCV05974 pending before the Los Angeles 6 Superior Court. I have personal knowledge of the facts outlined in this declaration and, if called 7 as a witness, could and would testify competently to such facts under oath. 8 2. Attached hereto as Exhibit 1 is a true and correct copy of the Honorable Edward 9 B. Moreton’s ORDER DENYING, The Ex Parte Application for Extension of Case Deadlines 10 or, in the Alternative, Stay Pending Petition to Add Case to Coordinated Proceeding filed by 11 LYFT, INC. in Case No.21STCV05974. 12 3. On September 4, 2019 the Law Firm of Levine Simes filed a petition for 13 coordination of about 23 cases alleging sexual assault by one or more Plaintiffs represented by 14 them. 15 4. On November 6, 2019, Lyft filed its OPPOSITION TO PETITION FOR 16 COORDINATION Proceeding No. 5061 adamantly arguing against the coordination. 17 Attached hereto as Exhibit 2 is a true and correct copy of that opposition. As explained in 18 Lyft’s memorandum, “the cases do not warrant coordination” as “each case is different. [and] 19 arises from a different incident of alleged sexual misconduct by a driver, involving a different 20 passenger.” See (Ex. 2 at 6). 21 5. In the proceeding months, about 60 additional cases were added to the JCCP by 22 mutual assent of the Parties. The majority of the Plaintiffs were represented by two Law Firms. 23 6. The action by Plaintiff Jane Rose was subsequently filed on February 16, 2021, 24 and served on March 16, 2021. 25 7. Thereafter on April 15, 2021, Plaintiff served its first set of form interrogatories 26 on Defendant. 27 28 2 PLAINTIFFS’ OBJECTION AND MOTION TO STRIKE LYFT’S REPLY BRIEF 1 8. Counsel for the parties continuously engaged in discussions as to a potential early 2 resolution and filed a pending stipulation with the Court to further extend Lyft’s deadline by 3 14 days to May 14, 2021. 4 9. On May 7, 2021 I spoke with counsel for Lyft, David Riskin, and explained our 5 opposition to joining the JCCP and provided our reasoning. During that call, counsel for Jane 6 Roe indicated that additional discovery would be needed in order to advance settlement 7 discussions. 8 10. On May 11, 2021, Plaintiff served its first set of requests for the production of 9 documents, requests for admission, special interrogatories, and its second set of form 10 interrogatories on Defendant. 11 11. Plaintiff Jane Roe was not a party to any of the proceedings in the JCCP and is 12 not one of the cases selected for the discovery pool for bellwether selection. At no point was 13 the above-named Plaintiff any part of the JCCP 5061 or eligible or even contemplated to be 14 part of the bellwether selection process in that proceeding. 15 12. The instant action is already set for trial and Plaintiff has already served its first 16 and second set of discovery requests. 17 13. The discovery sought in the instant case will undoubtedly promote settlement of 18 the instant action and help Plaintiff prosecute her case expeditiously. 19 20 I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California that the foregoing 21 is true and correct. 22 23 Dated: June 8, 2021 DOWNTOWN L.A. LAW GROUP 24 25 _______________________________ 26 Sami Sedghani, Esq. 27 Attorneys for Plaintiff 28 3 PLAINTIFFS’ OBJECTION AND MOTION TO STRIKE LYFT’S REPLY BRIEF 1 PROOF OF SERVICE THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA, COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES. 2 I am employed in the County of Los Angeles, State of California. I am over the age of 18 and not 3 a party to the within action; my business address is 601 N. Vermont Ave, Los Angeles, California 90004. 4 On June 8, 2021 I served the foregoing document described as: DECLARATION OF SAMI 5 SEDGHANI IN SUPPORT OF NON-PARTY JANE ROE’S OPPOSITION TO LYFT, INC.’S PETITION TO COORDINATE ADD-ON CASE 6 on said parties in this action as follows: 7 SEE SERVICE LIST 8 [X] BY UNITED STATES MAIL: Following ordinary business practices, I sealed true and correct copies of the above documents in addressed envelope(s) and placed them for collection and mailing with 9 the United States Postal Service. In the ordinary course of business, the sealed envelope(s) that I placed for collection would be deposited, postage prepaid, with the United States Postal Service that same day. 10 Presiding Judge of the Superior Court of California, 11 County of San Francisco 400 McAllister Street 12 San Francisco, CA 94102-4514 13 Sent Via US MAIL 14 Chair, Judicial Council of California 15 Attn: Appellate Court Services (Civil Case Coordination) · 16 455 Golden Gate Avenue, 5th Floor San Francisco, CA 94102-3688 17 Sent Via US MAIL 18 19 [X] BY ELECTRONIC MAIL: I caused said document(s) to be transmitted to the email 20 address(es) of the addressee(s) designated pursuant to CCP § 1010.6. 21 I declare under the penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California that the above is true and correct. 22 Executed on June 8, 2021 at Los Angeles, California. 23 24 Sandra Hernandez __________________________________ Sandra Hernandez 25 26 27 28 4 PLAINTIFFS’ OBJECTION AND MOTION TO STRIKE LYFT’S REPLY BRIEF 1 2 SERVICE LIST BY ELECTRONIC MAIL 3 Warren Metlitzky, Esq. Gabriela Kipnis, Esq. 4 CONRAD METLITZKY KANE LLP Four Embarcadero Center, Suite 1400 5 San Francisco, CA 94111 6 T: (415)343-7100 F: (415)343-7101 7 Email: wmetlitzky@conmetkane.com gkipnis@conmetkane.com 8 Attorneys for Defendant Lyft, Inc. 9 Heidi K. Hubbard 10 Ana C. Reyes Beth A. Stewart 11 David Riskin, Esq. Williams & Connolly LLP 12 725 Twelfth Street, N.W., Washington, DC 20005 13 T: (202)434-5789 14 F: (202)434-5029 Email: driskin@wc.com 15 bstewart@wc.com areyes@wc.com 16 hhubbard@wc.com 17 Attorneys for Defendant: Lyft, Inc. 18 Laurel L. Simes 19 Rachel Abrams Meghan E. McCormick 20 William Levin 21 Angela Nehmens Brian J. Perkins 22 LEVIN SIMES ABRAMS 1700 Montgomery Street, Suite 250 San Francisco, CA 94111 23 Email: llsimes@levinsimes.com rabrams@levinsimes.com 24 mmccormick@levinsimes.com 25 wlevin@levinsimes.com anehmens@levinsimes.com 26 bperkins@levinsimes.com 27 28 5 PLAINTIFFS’ OBJECTION AND MOTION TO STRIKE LYFT’S REPLY BRIEF Attorneys for Plaintiffs: Berquist, Bicana, Christensen, DiTrani, Espinosa, Hardin, Hashem, 1 Jane Doe 1, Jane Doe 2, Jane Doe 3, Jane Doe 4, Jane Doe 5, Jane Doe 6, Jane Doe 7, Jane 2 Doe 8, Jane Doe 9, Jane Doe 10, Jane Doe 11, Jane Doe 12, Jane Doe 13, Jane Doe 14, Jane Doe 15, Jane Doe 16, Jane Doe 17, Kran, Mandala, Matheson, Nan, Tarr, Turkos, and Wilson 3 Stephen J. Estey 4 R Michael Bomberger Kristen Barton 5 ESTEY & BOMBERGER, LLP 6 2869 India Street San Diego, CA 92103 7 Email: mike@estey-bomberger.com steve@estey-bomberger.com 8 kristen@estey-bomberger.com Attorneys for Plaintiffs: Alyssa Doe, Cheyenne Gutierrez, Jane DOE EB 30 et al., Jane Roe, 9 Jane Roe 1 et al., Jane Roe 1 et al., and Mary Whisler 10 Anna H. Cronk 11 Michael V. Greenslade Cindy Fernandez 12 GREENSLADE CRONK, LLP 5455 Wilshire Boulevard, Suite 1400 13 Los Angeles, CA 90036 14 Email: anna@greensladecronk.com michael@greensladecronk.com 15 cynthia@greensladecronk.com Attorney for Plaintiff: Gillian C. 16 17 James McKiernan JAMES MCKIERNAN LAWYERS 18 21 Santa Rosa Street, Suite 50 San Luis Obispo, CA 93405 19 Email: jmckiernan@mckiernanlaw.com Attorney for Plaintiff: Jane Doe 1, Jane Doe 2, Jane Doe 3 20 21 C. Brooks Cutter 22 Celine Cutter CUTTER LAW P.C. 23 401 Watt Avenue Sacramento, CA 95864 Email: bcutter@cutterlaw.com 24 ccutter@cutterlaw.com 25 Attorneys for Plaintiff: Alyssa Doe, Cheyenne Gutierrez, Jane DOE EB 30 et al., Jane Roe, Jane Roe 1 et al., Jane Roe 1 et al., and Mary Whisler 26 Walt Cubberly 27 28 6 PLAINTIFFS’ OBJECTION AND MOTION TO STRIKE LYFT’S REPLY BRIEF WILLIAMS HART BOUNDAS EASTERBY, LLP 1 8441 Gulf Freeway, Suite 600 2 Houston, TX 77017 Email: wcubberly@whlaw.com 3 Attorney for Plaintiffs: Jane Doe, Jane Doe, Jane Doe, Jane Doe WH4, Jane Doe WH5, and Jane Doe WH6 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 7 PLAINTIFFS’ OBJECTION AND MOTION TO STRIKE LYFT’S REPLY BRIEF EXHIBIT 1 SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA, COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES Civil Division Central District, Spring Street Courthouse, Department 27 21STCV05974 May 13, 2021 JANE ROE, AN INDIVIDUAL vs LYFT, INC., A DELAWARE 8:30 AM CORPORATION Judge: Honorable Edward B. Moreton CSR: None Judicial Assistant: J. Fletes ERM: None Courtroom Assistant: None Deputy Sheriff: None APPEARANCES: For Plaintiff(s): SAMI SEDGHANI (Telephonic) For Defendant(s): LYFT, INC., A DELAWARE CORPORATION by Warren Metlitsky (Telephonic) NATURE OF PROCEEDINGS: Hearing on Ex Parte Application for Extension of Case Deadlines or, in the Alternative, Stay Pending Petition to Add Case to Coordinated Proceeding After an in-chambers review, the Court rules as follows: Defendant Lyft, Inc. states that on May 12, 2021, it filed a petition to coordinate this case in Judicial Council Coordination Proceeding No. 5061. Based on that, Defendant “requests a 60-day extension of all deadlines in this case (including the deadline to respond to the complaint and discovery deadlines) to allow the Honorable Andrew Y.S. Cheng the opportunity to consider that petition. In the alternative, Lyft asks for an order staying this case while that petition is pending and requiring Lyft to respond to the complaint within fourteen days after any order denying the petition to coordinate, as well as provide any discovery twenty-one days after any order.” The application is denied because it sets forth neither legal authority nor sufficient factual support to demonstrate good cause for the relief it seeks. The Ex Parte Application for Extension of Case Deadlines or, in the Alternative, Stay Pending Petition to Add Case to Coordinated Proceeding filed by LYFT, INC., A DELAWARE CORPORATION on 05/12/2021 is Denied. Moving party to give notice. Minute Order Page 1 of 2 EXHIBIT 2 WARREN METLITZKY (CA Bar No. 220758) GABRIELA KIPNIS (CA Bar No. 284965) 2 WILLIAM J. COOPER (CA Bar No. 304524) COURTNEY C. AASEN (CA Bar No. 307404) 3 CONRAD & METLITZKY LLP Four Embarcadero Center, Suite 1400 4 San Francisco, CA 94111 Telephone: (415) 343-7100 5 Facsimile: (415) 343-7101 Email: wmetlitzky@conradmetlitzky.com 6 gkipnis@conradmetlitzky.com wcooper@conradmetlitzky.com 7 caasen@conradmetlitkzy.com 8 HEIDI HUBBARD (pro hac vice) BETH STEWART (pro hac vice) 9 ANA REYES (pro hac vice) WILLIAMS & CONNOLLY LLP 10 725 Twelfth Street, NW Washington, DC 20005 11 Telephone: (202) 434-5000 Facsimile: (202) 434-5029 12 Email: hhubbard@wc.com bstewart@wc.com 13 areyes@wc.com 14 Attorneys for Defendant Lyft, Inc. 15 SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA 16 COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES 17 UNLIMITED JURISDICTION 18 19 Coordination Proceeding Special Title (Rule 3.550) JUDICIAL COUNCIL COORDINATION 20 PROCEEDING NO. 5061 L YFT ASSAULT CASES 1 21 DEFENDANT LYFT, INC.'S OPPOSITION TO PETITION FOR 22 COORDINATION 23 Hearing Date: November 20, 2019 Time: 11 :00 a.m. 24 Dept. 14 Petition Filed: September 4, 2019 25 26 1 27 Because not every plaintiff alleges assault, the caption "Lyft Assault Cases" is inaccurate and overbroad, in addition to being unnecessarily prejudicial. Given the diversity of allegations 28 and the fact that all plaintiffs allege vicarious liability for a driver's conduct, and akin to the Massage Envy Franchising Cas!es proceeding discussed below, Lyft respectfully suggests that the proceeding be captioned "Lyft, Inc. Driver Cases." JCCP NO. 5061 LYFT, INC.'S OPPOSITION TO PETITION FOR COORDINATION l TABLE OF CONTENTS 2 INTRODUCTION ........................................................................................................................... 5 3 BACKGROUND ............................................................................................................................. 8 4 THE CASES DO NOT WARRANT COORDINATION ............................................................... 9 5 A. Common Questions of Law or Fact Do Not Predominate Where the Underlying Claims Are Separate Incidents of Sexual Misconduct. ...................... 10 6 B. Coordination Will Not Result in the Efficient Use of Judicial Resources or 7 Convenience of the Parties, Counsel, and Witnesses ............................................ 13 8 C. The Relative Development of the Actions Weighs Against Coordination ............ 16 9 D. The Likelihood of Settlement Does Not Favor Coordination ................................ 17 10 CONCLUSION .............................................................................................................................. 18 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 2 JCCP NO. 5061 LYFT, INC. 'S OPPOSITION TO PETITION FOR COORDINATION 1 TABLE OF AUTHORITIES 2 CASES 3 Cadlo v. Owens-Illinois, Inc., 125 Cal. App. 4th 513 (2004) ......................................................... 11 4 Carr v. Stern, 17 Cal. App. 397 (1911) .......................................................................................... 15 5 Doe v. Capital Cities, 50 Cal. App. 4th 103 8 (1996) ...................................................................... 12 6 Federico v. Superior Court, 59 Cal. App. 4th 1207 (1997) ............................................................ 12 7 Jolly v. Eli Lilly & Co., 44 Cal. 3d 1103 (1988) ............................................................................. 11 8 Kennedy v. Baxter Healthcare Corp., 43 Cal. App. 4th 799 (1996) ............................................... 11 9 Lisa M v.Henry Mayo Newhall Memorial Hospital, 12 Cal. 4th 291 (1995) ............................... 11 10 Massage Envy Franchising Cases, JCCP No. 4997 (Super. Ct., Sacramento Cty. 11 June 24, 2019) ................................................................................................................... l, 6, 10 12 Rubio v. Monsanto Co., 181 F. Supp. 3d 746 (C.D. Cal. 2016) ..................................................... 15 13 Washington Mutual Bank, FA v. Superior Court, 24 Cal. 4th 906 (2001) ..................................... 13 14 Yanase v. Automobile Club of Southern California, 212 Cal. App. 3d 468 (1989) ........................ 12 15 STATUTES AND RULES 16 28 U.S.C. § 1407 ............................................................................................................................. 17 17 Alabama Code§ 32-7C-2l(a) ......................................................................................................... 14 18 California Civil Procedure Code 19 20 § 404 ...................................................................................................................................passim 21 § 404.1 ................................................................................................................................passim 22 § 2025.620 ................................................................................................................................. I 5 23 Florida Statute§ 627.748(2) ........................................................................................................... 14 24 Illinois Compiled Statute 57/25(e) .................................................................................................. 14 25 Illinois Superior Court Rule 204 (b) ................................................................................................ 13 26 Michigan Compiled Law§ 257.2127(1) ......................................................................................... 14 27 New Jersey Rule of Court 4: l l-4(a) ............................................................................................... 13 28 New York Vehicle & Traffic Law § 1692 ...................................................................................... 14 3 JCCP NO. 506 l LYFT, INC.'S OPPOSITION TO PETITION FOR COORDINATION 1 Virginia Code § 46.2-2000 ............................................................................................................. 14 2 Wisconsin Statute 3 § 194.01(1) ................................................................................................................................ 14 4 § 887.24(6)(a) ........................................................................................................................... 13 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 4 JCCP NO. 5061 LYFT, INC.'S OPPOSITION TO PETITION FOR COORDINATION 1 INTRODUCTION 2 The Petition before the Court is not a conventional petition to secure coordination of 3 similar complex cases filed in different California counties. 2 It is an improvident and 4 unprecedented invitation under California Civil Procedure Code §§ 404 and 404. l to make San 5 Francisco Superior Court a national clearinghouse for claims against San Francisco-based 6 companies that arise out of individual incidents that occurred largely in other states-claims that 7 will involve considerable discovery in those other states and also will be governed in significant 8 measure by the law of those states. The logic of the Petition would mean that all claims against a 9 California-based company-wherever the underlying incidents arise, and however much the 10 disputed facts occurred elsewhere and other states' laws govern the contested legal issues-could 11 be brought in California courts and coordinated. That surely was not the intent in enacting§§ 404 12 and 404.1, and it would tax the already-overburdened docket of the Superior Courts. 13 The cases at issue involve allegations of sexual misconduct by independent-contractor 14 drivers using the Lyft "app" (i.e., ride-sharing platform). Plaintiffs' allegations are disturbing to 15 Lyft, which places passenger safety at the heart of its mission. No person should have to endure 16 sexual misconduct of any kind. The Petition, however, presents the question how the judicial 17 system can best handle these cases. For purposes of coordination, two factors are of overriding 18 importance: that the allegations of misconduct are not the same, and that the majority of incidents 19 did not occur in California. 20 Plaintiffs' counsel seeks coordination in San Francisco Superior Court of 23 cases 3 21 alleging 38 incidents that occurred in 29 different cities across 19 states-from Marlborough, 22 Massachusetts to Tacoma, Washington. The majority of the alleged incidents-22 of 38- 23 2 "Petition" refers to Petitioners' memorandum in support of the "Application ... for 24 Complex Designation, Petition for Coordination, and Request for Stay" (Sept. 4, 2019) filed by Levin Simes Abrams LLP. "Joinder" refers to the "Response in Support of Petition for 25 Coordination" (Sept. 23, 2019) filed by Estey & Bomberger LLP. 3 26 Lyft understands that plaintiffs' counsel seeks coordination of 20 cases filed in San Francisco Superior Court plus 3 additional cases: The Petition (filed by the Levin Simes law 27 firm) identified 13 cases the firm filed in San Francisco Superior Court, along with 2 cases filed in other counties by other law firms. The Joinder (filed by the Estey & Bomberger law firm) 28 identified a further 6 cases-all filed in San Francisco. Estey Bomberger and Lyftjointly filed an add-on notice of an additional case filed in Los Angeles; and there is another case filed by Levin Simes in San Francisco. 5 JCCP NO. 5061 LYFT, fNC.'S OPPOSITION TO PETITION FOR COORDINATION occurred in other states and involved out-of-state plaintiffs, drivers, and witnesses. 4 The cases 2 involving these 22 alleged out-of-state incidents do not belong in California courts at all. Every 3 forum non conveniens factor except the plaintiff's choice of forum (or, more specifically, their 4 California-based counsel's choice of forum) weighs in favor of dismissal, 5 and the similar § 404.1 5 considerations explain why coordination would be inefficient and inappropriate. 6 First, each case is different. Each case arises from a different incident of alleged sexual 7 misconduct by a driver, involving a different passenger. The one common factor is that each 8 plaintiff asserts that she or he commissioned a ride using the Lyft app. But in each case, one does 9 not even reach questions of Lyft' s liability (whether vicarious, or for negligent screening of 10 drivers or misrepresentation) unless the plaintiff first proves the driver's misconduct, along with 11 other case-specific facts. In short, case-specific facts predominate. That was the Sacramento 12 Superior Court's conclusion in the Massage Envy Franchising Cases, in which the court declined 13 to coordinate 8 cases alleging 13 individual instances of sexual assault-all of which occurred in 14 California-by masseurs at Massage Envy franchise locations. See Massage Envy Franchising 15 Cases, JCCP No. 4997, Order Denying Petition for Coordination, at 3 (Super. Ct., Sacramento 16 Cty. June 24, 2019) (Request for Judicial Notice ["RFJN"], Ex. A). Notwithstanding common 17 causes of action for vicarious liability and negligent hiring, the court reasoned that proving one 18 assault would have no determinative effect on any of the other cases. All the more so here, where 19 the majority of incidents did not occur in California. 20 Second, because the majority of cases involve alleged out-of-state incidents, coordination 21 would be significantly more costly for the parties and more time-consuming for the court. All the 22 discovery that Lyft requires regarding the out-of-state incidents and out-of-state plaintiffs will 23 take place outside California, requiring the California court to issue commissions for third-party 24 depositions and document discovery-and limiting its ability to enforce discovery orders directly. 25 26 4 Plaintiffs' counsel has stated that they will soon file additional cases, see, e.g., Petition, Deel. of R. Abrams (Sept. 4, 2019), , 24, the vast majority of which Lyft has reason to believe 27 also involve out-of-state incidents. 5 28 Lyft has so far moved for dismissal or stay on forum non conveniens grounds in 10 cases. In the 6 cases in which plaintiffs to date have filed oppositions, they do not dispute that their home state is an adequate alternative forum. 6 JCCP NO. 5061 LYFT, INC. 'S OPPOSITION TO PETITION FOR COORDINATION And, because each plaintiff must establish both the driver's alleged misconduct and damages 2 through discovery from out-of-state drivers, witnesses, law enforcement, healthcare providers, 3 and other non-California sources, much of the discovery that plaintiffs require also is outside 4 California. Attempting to coordinate significant out-of-state discovery from California is certain 5 to slow down these cases and compound the costs for the parties and the court. 6 Third, coordination will not eliminate inconsistent rulings because the cases will be 7 governed by the law of different states. No matter how rigorously consistent the court's 8 reasoning, coordination of California and out-of-state cases would almost certainly result in 9 inconsistent rulings, because a California court would be required to apply, for example, New 10 York law to tort claims arising in New York and involving a New York plaintiff and driver. Even 11 as to the California plaintiffs, the court's rulings would likely differ from case to case because the 12 alleged facts necessarily differ from case to case. 13 Fourth, to the extent pretrial proceedings require the appearance in California of third- 14 party witnesses or their counsel, coordination would be unusually inconvenient for them, given 15 that 22 of the 38 incidents allegedly took place as far away as Florida, Massachusetts, and New 16 York. Were the cases to remain coordinated for trial in California, the court could not compel the 17 appearance of these out-of-state witnesses, including the alleged assailant, law-enforcement and 18 medical personnel, and key damages witnesses. 19 Fifth, § 404 is a mechanism to achieve efficient coordination of similar cases that have 20 been filed in different California counties. Here, 20 of the 23 filed cases-and 20 of the 21 21 served cases-have been filed in the same court. The one served case that was filed in a court 22 other than San Francisco Superior Court has progressed beyond two rounds of demurrers and into 23 discovery. Thus, while plaintiffs' counsel has identified cases for coordination filed "in different 24 courts," Cal. Civ. Proc. Code§ 404, the one non-San Francisco case that has been served is at a 25 different stage than the San Francisco cases, and the Petition and Joinder fail to demonstrate any 26 efficiencies will result from coordinating these differently situated actions. 27 For all these reasons, the Court should deny coordination. 28 7 JCCP NO. 5061 LYFT, INC.'S OPPOSITION TO PETITION FOR COORDINATION BACKGROUND 2 Lyft is a ride-sharing company with its headquarters in San Francisco. It maintains a 3 software platform that connects people seeking a ride with drivers offering them. Drivers who 4 wish to use the platform must (among other things) register with Lyft, submit to and pass a 5 background check (as the complaints concede), and agree to Lyft's Terms of Service. Lyft uses a 6 vendor with expertise in background checks, and it searches six separate databases that include, 7 collectively, global, national, state, and local data. Lyft also has implemented first-of-its-kind, 8 and still-unique, safety measures in the for-hire transportation industry, and recently announced a 9 partnership with the 145-year-old firm ADT to develop additional safety features. After a driver 10 passes the background screenings and is approved by Lyft, he or she may use the Lyft platform to 11 offer rides, or not, whenever and wherever the driver chooses. 12 There are 23 pending complaints. They allege 38 incidents perpetrated by 37 different 13 drivers in 29 cities and 19 states. 6 Of the 38 incidents, less than half (16) occurred in California. 14 Appendix A, attached to the declaration filed with this brief, identifies the cases Lyft understands 15 to be included in the coordination request, the court in which each case was filed, how the case 16 was brought to the Court's attention, the law firm representing the plaintiff(s) in each case, and 17 where the alleged incidents underlying the cases occurred. 18 The claims of driver misconduct vary dramatically. Most plaintiffs assert that they used 19 the Lyft app to initially match with the driver, but at least one does not. All of the allegations are 20 disturbing, but they also are different: some allege rape; others, being yelled at or grabbed or 21 made afraid; a few, being subjected to lewd or harassing comments. No two plaintiffs allege the 22 same set of facts, just as, with one exception, no two allege misconduct by the same driver or 23 identify a witness in common with the other incidents-not surprisingly, as the incidents occurred 24 in so many different places across the country. 25 And although the complaints largely repeat the same causes of action, the applicable law 26 varies. For example, some of the alleged incidents occurred in states with statutes that expressly 27 6 28 Alabama, Arizona, California, Florida, Illinois, Louisiana, Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota, Nevada, New Jersey, New York, North Carolina, Ohio, South Carolina, Utah, Virginia, Washington, and Wisconsin. 8 JCCP NO. 5061 LYFT, INC.' S OPPOSITION TO PETITION FOR COORDINATION 1 exempt or limit the scope of tort liability for ride-sharing companies from common-carrier 2 obligations; other incidents occurred in states where the applicability of common-carrier 3 obligations to ride-sharing companies is a matter of common law. 4 THE CASES DO NOT WARRANT COORDINATION 5 The request for coordination is atypical. The cases do not concern a mass tort: plaintiffs 6 do not allege that they were injured in the same catastrophic accident or by the same 7 environmental contamination. Nor, like many instances of coordinated litigation, do they allege 8 they used the same defective drug or medical device. The sole common thread in the cases is that 9 plaintiffs used the Lyft app to match with a driver. Everything else-the circumstances of the 10 incident, the character of the driver's misconduct, the nature of the plaintiffs injury, the findings 11 of any police investigation of the incident, the driver's background, the then-existing statutory 12 background-check procedures, the witnesses to the alleged incident-is not common. And those 13 uncommon elements not only predominate, but will involve extensive discovery from out-of-state 14 sources. It is for this reason that the request for coordination is unprecedented in its reach: it asks 15 a California court to coordinate cases that arise from alleged misconduct by different people, with 16 different victims, 7 in different locales, thereby implicating different states'